Fisheries Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[The Chair]

Thank you.

We'll return now to the government side, to Mr. Hardie, for three minutes or less.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There will be a short comment from me, and then I'll pass it over to Mr. Finnigan who will then pass it over to Mr. Fraser. We're being very efficient here.

This is a comment. We've heard in many of our studies, and most recently in our study that's under way on small craft harbours, that the local knowledge of the people on the ground is quite often not given due weight in DFO decisions. In the case of small craft harbours, we heard that local people had very clear ideas of improvements that were needed and that DFO came in with engineers and others who basically did something different. We didn't get value for money or the result that everybody was looking for.

This is something that you will hear again and again from us, and I would hope that in future studies, when we have a chance to talk to you, we'll hear a little bit more about the closer collaboration with people on the ground who actually know what's going on locally. I think that's going to be important for good results.

Mr. Finnigan.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I'll be brief.

You received a letter from the Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels, or the FRAPP. In the letter, Jean Lanteigne listed various concerns regarding the area closures resulting from the presence of whales. Apparently, some regions want the next fishing season to start earlier. There's a great deal of concern about safety and the economic aspect. Some regions would be able to start fishing earlier, and other regions wouldn't be able to do so.

I want you to be aware of these concerns and to ensure that no region will lose out as a result of this. However, I don't know whether the solution would be to open the fishing areas earlier.

[Catherine Blewett]

Okay.

[Colin Fraser]

The oceans protection plan and the Atlantic fisheries fund have done significant good in ensuring that we're relying on the best science and data available and in ensuring that conservation of our fisheries resources is a primary concern for the government to ensure sustainability of the resources for the long term. I think there's a lot of good happening with the oceans protection plan, supported by the Atlantic fisheries fund in Atlantic Canada, where I know a lot of smaller, industry-led organizations have stepped up to say that we need more science to know what's going on in our oceans for the long term.

One issue with regard to marine protected areas, however, is that there's some misinformation or a misunderstanding about how marine protected areas work. I hope there will be more consultation with the people on the ground to ensure they understand that if a marine protected area, for example, is put in place, it doesn't necessarily close a fishery. I'm thinking particularly of the lobster fishery. There can be other ways to ensure conservation for the long term.

I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on consultation with industry regarding the marine protected areas in particular.

[Catherine Blewett]

We really appreciate it because there is a little bit of a challenge in terms of the nomenclature. People do confuse what marine protected areas are. We actually have various levels of protection. When you hear “marine protected area”, that typically refers to an Oceans Act MPA, which is actually fairly closed to human activity.

We have so many levels of protection. I'll pick a Nova Scotian example, because I'm very lucky to be from there. We're looking at an area on the eastern shore. It's an inshore area for protection, but the biodiversity we're trying to protect in that particular area is not impacted by the lobster fishery. We've communicated that. We expect that to go forward. As well, there's some harvesting of seaweed.

We can do a better job, as we go forward, to make sure we're clear and we communicate what we're trying to achieve. I do make the joke occasionally that it's not very often that people say to DFO, “Please slow down.” In the case of marine protected areas, when I started my job, Canada was at about 1% of marine protection. The mandate was 5% protection by the end of 2017. We did go quite quickly. In the very good work that went out—lots of maps—there are stakeholders who have said, “Hold on, what do you mean?” We are working with provinces and other stakeholders to make sure we explain it and have an opportunity for folks to make sure that they have their say and that they have a clear line of sight on the protections that we're trying to get to—what's in, what's out and how it actually will roll out.

[Colin Fraser]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Now to the Conservative side, with Mr. Calkins for three minutes or less, please.

[Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Yurdiga has a question, then I'll take over from there.

[David Yurdiga]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the department officials for being here today.

Data is everything—data and science. Mel Arnold asked a question about municipal waste. The minister responded by saying that's an environmental concern. That goes to that committee.

About a month ago, I was substituting in the environment committee and I asked the same question. They said they don't have any data on that. Which department collects data on municipal waste and the toxins in that municipal waste if it's not your department?

[Catherine Blewett]

It actually is Environment and Climate Change Canada. When substances move into the water course, ECCC has that.

[David Yurdiga]

Why isn't that data available to us? I asked that question in the environment committee and they had no data.

[Catherine Blewett]

I'm happy to follow up with my departmental colleagues. If that's useful, I'm happy to do it.

[David Yurdiga]

Thank you.

[Blaine Calkins]

To the department officials here, following what I think was some fairly intense political pressure, the government relented and exempted fishing fuel from the proposed—or the now-implemented—carbon tax for the approximately 46,000 fishers in Canada. However, there are all kinds of incidental costs that fishers will bear as a result of the carbon tax. One only has to look at the cost of shipping lobster. I'm looking at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans website right now. It says, “About two-thirds of Canada's 50 million lb lobster catch is shipped alive to distant markets. This involves coastal storage in crates, cars, tanks and tidal pounds for a few days or up to several months, shipment for 1-5 days”.

All of these things are going to be costs that will be borne by the fishing industry. Any equipment that's brought to the wharf and anything that's taken away from the wharf is going to have increased costs because all of it consumes energy.

Has the department done a study—notwithstanding the carbon tax exemption on the fuel for the boat alone—on what the cost of the carbon tax will actually be to the fishing industry?

[Catherine Blewett]

I'll turn to Sylvie to ask if we've actually done that work. My sense is that we've not done an in-depth study. That would be my initial take.

Sylvie, you may have some initial data.

[Sylvie Lapointe]

That's correct. We haven't done a study, but we'd be happy to look into it and get back to you with some preliminary analysis on that.

[Blaine Calkins]

I look forward to that.

The other question I have is with regard to—

[The Chair]

You have five seconds.

[Blaine Calkins]

It's going to have to wait.

[The Chair]

Mr. Donnelly, make it a quick question, please, before we run out of time.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to turn to icebreakers and the Canadian Coast Guard. The supplementary estimates (A) propose $827.3 million in funding to procure three icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. The Parliamentary Budget Officer notes that this funding relates to purchasing and retrofitting three used Norwegian icebreakers as an interim measure. A Canadian Press report states that the three Norwegian-made icebreakers will cost up to 30% more than projected due to import tariffs, brokerage fees and other costs.

When will these three icebreakers be in service to provide interim capacity? Where will they be located? Why were the tariffs and other additional costs not included in DFO's original cost estimates?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

The first icebreaker will come into service several weeks from now, before Christmas. The other two icebreakers will be undergoing a more extensive refit, and they will come into service later. I'm just going to check the dates to make sure that I don't give you wrong dates.

In terms of where they will serve, they're not being assigned to a specific zone. They'll be assigned where they need them as we take other ships to do refit work and vessel life extension work. These ships are meant to maintain a capability that allows us the flexibility to work on other ships.

For example, when the first ship goes into service, it will be serving the northwest corner of Newfoundland, initially. These ships are very capable. They can work throughout the St. Lawrence region, the gulf. They can work the Arctic. They've all been to the North Pole before. They're very capable vessels.

I just want to double-check those dates, which I have here.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

What is the cost?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

The cost of acquiring the vessels—